Skip to main content

About your Search

20130627
20130705
SHOW
Book TV 35
Cavuto 15
( more )
STATION
SFGTV 148
SFGTV2 146
FOXNEWSW 142
MSNBCW 136
CNNW 119
FBC 88
CSPAN2 76
CSPAN 75
KGO (ABC) 64
KPIX (CBS) 50
KNTV (NBC) 49
KTVU (FOX) 48
KQED (PBS) 46
LINKTV 31
COM 30
KRCB (PBS) 27
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 1403
French 4
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 1,416 (some duplicates have been removed)
summary of the laws. the ada, calif. building code, the civil rights, and our experts here will elaborate. we also have a list of certified caps at work in san francisco for you. carla johnson with the mayor's office of disability has created a really good it died of out to interview your experts to make sure you are getting the best quality product for you. been next -- the money you pay for the inspection you can take as a tax deduction. any money that if you have taken can be applied as a tax deduction. this can be done on an annual basis. next, the opportunity, and a fund -- opportunity loan fund, providing for small businesses to pay for the inspection or to make improvements needed. to do it before you receive the lawsuit. and lastly, we of the bar association and their resources. they're providing their legal service for you. this last thing i am going to share with you in terms of what we have seen in our office is that with the individuals, that does not necessarily mean an individual will follow up with a lawsuit. what we've seen in our office is the individual's will send you a
, you know, through case law, that have been seen to give more weight. >> sure. the totality of the circumstances is you look at the sum total of the evidence, i take it, and then also apply common sense. >> right, right. reasonable person standard is what is generally referred to. >> in fact, interestingly, it is the reasonable person standard or the reasonable belief standard which squarely is part of self-defense? >> yes, you can say -- >> we'll talk about that more in a minute, but the work that you're doing now -- >> yes. >> -- are you prosecuting or defending? >> prosecuting. >> just prosecuting? >> just prosecuting. >> do you have the opportunity to defend? >> no, i do not -- not right now, not in the position i am, but the way the jag course is set up, they put you in a certain position and throughout your career you move on to different things. before being a military prosecutor, i dealt with administrative law, federal regulations, interpreting of regulations, giving legal reviews, things of that nature. as you progress, they move you on, like a little circuit. >> t
and applications that he filled out. basically to show that he was interested in law enforcement and that he had some knowledge in criminal justice. that he was interested in the criminal justice system. you will remember that zimmerman did a televised national interview where he said that he did not know about the stand your ground law here in the state of florida. prosecutors are pushing to show that he did have some knowledge and may have, indeed, known about that law. this picks up on critical testimony from yesterday. we heard from a medical examiner. this is not the medical examiner, very important to point this out, not the medical examiner who handled the autopsy for trayvon martin, but, instead, a witness who was called by the state to examine this question given the injuries that we saw on george zimmerman's head, was he truly in danger of being killed himself? images of george zimmerman bloodied and beaten up. important visuals for his defense, trying to show that zimmzim erman's head was slammed against the sidewalk and he had to fire his gun to save his own life. that is not the way
optical rational basis review as though proposition 8 were on a par with the law of treating opticians less favorably than optometrists, when it really is the polar opposite of such a law. >> general verrilli, i could understand your argument if you were talking about the entire united states, but you -- your brief says it's only eight or nine states, the states that permit civil unions, and that's brings up a question that was asked before. so a state that has made considerable progress has to go all the way, but at least the government's position is, if it has done -- the state has done absolutely nothing at all, then it's -- it can do -- do as it will. >> that gets to my second point, your honor, which is that i do think the problem here with the arguments that petitioners are advancing is that california's own laws do cut the legs out from under all of the justifications that petitioners have offered in defense of proposition 8, and i understand your honor's point and the point that justice kennedy raised earlier, but i do think this court's equal protection jurisprudence requires
you for that clarification. absolutely. with that, let's call -- we have the law library up next. [speaker not understood]. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm going to see if this works. i've never done this before. >> mr. clerk, could we get some help with the machine? >> may we have the overhead display? thank you. >> there it goes, thank you. great. i just want to say that even though i think about myself, i shouldn't, this is my 23rd year of annual budget hearings. the law library budget is basically the same as it has been for a long time. there are no changes in positions. there's never any overtime. the only difference is what you're already familiar with which is the fact there will be a rent cost. but other than that, there are no adjustments of any note. i'm not going to go through all of the documents i gave you. i tried to make them easy to read, but i just am responding to the questions that you had. i just wanted to address them quickly and i will try to be short. so you have time for other people. but on the first page you can see that we discussed what our missio
go on july 3. obama-care delayed, a critical part of the president's signature healthcare law has been put off until 2015, another year conveniently after the mid-term election of 2014. that's where we begin on a rainy day in washington. martha: sunny new york. here is the situation. businesses with 50 or more employees will get an extra year before they are forced to provide those workers without insurance with insurancer face a fine. the treasury department is expressing concern over the complexity of the requirement and more time to implement them effectively. bill: critics saying this sits just another sign -- saying this is just another sign the law is unworkable. this announcement means even the obama administration knows the train wreck will only get worse borrowing a phrase from a democratic senator. charles payne joins us. give us the news. what does this mean? >> companies with 50 or more employees were facing a $2,000 per employee fine if they did not provide healthcare. so we saw restaurant and companies cutting back on the number of employees and part time. pushing th
now have is a wholly intent that goes against the law of nature and the law of god. >> but comes down against the voting rights act. >> it is a different south, a different alabama. >> what the supreme court did was put a dagger in the heart of the voting rights act. >> the senate takes an historic stand on immigration reform. >> when the moment comes to cast a vote, i will be casting it in memory of my mother. >> the president steps up on climate change. >> we need to act. >> this is crazy. >> the eyes of the nation are on a texas state filibuster on abortion.[applause] ♪ as we head toward the independence day celebration, we witnessed a remarkable week in the supreme court. by a 5-4 vote, the justices overturned a key provision of the voting rights act and handed a victory to the proponents of where to marriage. begin. let's start with gay marriage. >> the united states supreme court held there was no purpose for depriving gay and lesbian couples of the right to marry the person they love. >> marriage. that is something god created. that is something god will define. the supreme
people , all of the doom and share an interest to reform the outdated laws. if this book is a road map how to get the laws that we need and want now, whether we achieve marriage or not. is a road map for protecting our relationships with children to pressure family and medical leave, assuring economic security after the death of an economic provider to make sure the person we choose makes medical decisions for us if we are unable to make them for ourselves. marriage should not be the dividing line between the relationships that count in the relationships that don't and in fact,, over the course of the last several decades, the legal significance of marriage has changed dramatically so what i am advocating in this book is not so much a rigid break from how things have always been done but rather an extension of changes that have already been made in our legal system. and i will just give a little bit of a condensed analysis of what has changed. to do that i have to ask you to channel yourself back 40 years and imagine it is february, 1968 instead of february 2008. this is what the law o
of the president's healthcare law. if that's the case, then why did the administration just have to make a huge concession on the penalties in the law enforcement cue the fireworks. this fourth of july show is jut getting started. you make a great team. it's been that way since e day you met. but your erectile dysfunction - itld be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you cabe more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immedte medical hel for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease
under the law. today, the united states supreme court, in two important decisions, brings us that much closer to true equality. asthe decision striking unconstitutional, the so-called defense of marriage act case, the united states supreme court held that there was no precedence for depriving gay and lesbian couples of the right to marry the person they love. there was no legitimate justification for that. thatstice scalia noted, holding, that principle, guarantees the right of every individual in every state to marriage equality. , thee california case supreme court held that the proponents of proposition 8 did not have standing. what that means is that in that case, the supreme court could the merits. everything that the supreme court said in the defense of marriage opinion where they didn't reach the merit demonstrates that when that case finally does come to the united states supreme court on the merit, marriage equality will be a law throughout this land. our plaintiffs now get to go and togetherornia with every other citizen of california, marry the person they love. [applause] a
of religious groups that put proposition 8 on the ballot did not have standing or authority to defend the law, only state officials can, and the govern and state attorney general refused to do that. but before the weddings can resume, there are some legal hurdles that could come in the next 25 days. there may be some litigation on question of standing. does this impact justed two couples that were involved directly or does it affect just the counties that were involved initially directly or does this impact the entire state? >> reporter: proposition 8 supporters are expected to argue that the supreme court decision only impacts the two gay and lesbian couples and the two counties in the lawsuit, so some county clerks could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. that possibility did not damper the champagne celebration in san francisco's city attorney's office. the legal team here is prepared to fight. >> in the event that they do that, we are prepared to go in and force the court to enforce its order. we will be prepared to litigate that, because those counties don't have a le
says this is arrogance on the part of this court to strike down a law that has been passed overwhelmingly by congress. the four liberal justices dissent. the very next day, they strike down the defense of marriage act. justice scalia calls it job dropping arrogance that we are overturning the decision of the congress and the executive in the defense of marriage act, a very popular law. who would vote against the defense of marriage act? pretty easy in the middle of the 1990's to vote for that. justice scalia is talking, if anyone was there, they say, wait a minute. weren't you on that exact opposite side of that issue the day before? >> i like the form of reasoning that there is something you should be skeptical about because the voting rights act was passed 98-0 in the senate. >> justice alito wrote a very interesting dissent on the doma case, but did not announce it from the bench. did that have room for coverage in your stories? did you think it was worth writing about? >> i certainly mentioned it. he stated clearly that he read the majority's opinion that the states sho
was familiar with florida's semifinal defense laws hoping that will help them bowl center their thoroughly zimmerman was a quote, wannabe cop. they've been at it for about 308 minutes now. the state as you can see perhaps using om power point slides to try and make their case. the defense, of course, wants to exclude the evidence including coursework and transcripts of classes that zimmerman took in college as well as his job application to the prince william county police department and there was an application to ride along with sanford police. joining me now legal analyst lis za bloom from burbank and veteran prosecutor paul henderson who joins us live from san francisco. lisa, let me start with you. this, of course, is where we left off yesterday essentially. the state wanting to get these pieces of evidence in to try and bolster their claim that george zimmerman did have a thorough working knowledge of police procedure and that might have helped explain why he used certain language like i unholstered my gun, i didn't take my gun out but i unholstered my firearm. that will fox intervie
. >> the other half is about the international human rights law. when does the human rights law start becoming a part of this discussion? >> around the turn of the century but people think that international human rights law is a product of the 20th century. that is in most people said it is after world war ii. so the holocaust happened and as the news of that came out a bunch of things happened after world war ii. there was the trial of the criminals, similar trials in the far east. the u.n. was founded, universal declaration of human rights. that's the moment everyone says it started to look at human rights issues. in my book i said it was in connection with the slave trade that the international law was used for the human rights purpose and so in the early 19th century starting in 1807 and 1808 when countries like the u.s., britain was another country that band the slave trade are found that in the began to spread throughout the countries that had been engaged in the slave trade but this is no longer a practice they wanted to participate. it was violating natural rights and the same ideas o
. governor rick perry signed that voter i.d. bill into law and then the federal government wrote the state of texas a nice note about it. "we've carefully considered the information you have provided about your new voter i.d. law. including the state's own estimate that as many as 800,000 registered texas voters do not have the kind of i.d. that texas republicans wanted to make people show before they'd be allowed to vote." it's not just any 800,000 texans who don't have it. "hispanic registered voters are more than twice as likely as nonhispanic registered voters to lack such identification." under the new republican voting law in texas, hispanics would be twice as likely to not be allowed to vote. according to the state's own data. so the federal government said, you know what, texas, no. you cannot change your laws in such a way that you, yourself, admit will block hundreds of thousands of latinos from voting. the federal government blocked texas from going ahead with that. duh. but that wasn't all that texas republicans were trying to do. after the 2010 census, texas republicans create
in california who twice, twice affirmed the bibliical and historical law definition of marriage of one man and one woman. ine if you think people of the same gender should marry, i would like to think that you feel a major cultural shift ought to be in the hans of the peopll who are supposed to hold ultimate authority under our government. ine in the decision of the doma, the legislation was passed overwhelmingly by both houses of congress in a bipartisan vote and signed by a democrat, president bill clinton and no matter people who voted for it have evolved and are now gaents it. put it back before the world's greatest body and people's house and see how it flies. same- sex marriage is newer than google and the ipod and the first nation to codify it into law doesn't do so until the year 2000. i am told i need to support the marriage of two people of the same gender. i am on the right side of history because history is pretty long on marriage between a man and a woman and not so much for other versions. despite the frothing of the advocates to the contrary, i am not a homophobe or a hater,
at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> stanford university law professor jenny martinez talks about efforts and a late 18th-century to ban the international slave trade which she argues laid the foundations for the modern international human rights movement. book tv sat down with professor martinez at stanford university in california. this is about 20 minutes. >> and book tv from stanford university continues. now we are joined by law professor jenny martinez whose book of the slave trade and the origins of international and human rights law is our next topic. >> the federal congress couldn't te any action against the slave trade until 1808. and the u.s. at the first moment it could, in 1807, president jefferson sent legislation up to congress that banned participation in the slave trade by u.s. ships and u.s. persons, and congress passed that. and so in 1808 the u.s. prohibited the slave trade which was a long time before, of course, slavery itself ended in the united states. but the issues were seen as different and even southerners were in support of banning the slave trade. >>
the federal defense of marriage act. [ cheers and applause ] >> the law passed by congress in 1996, signed by president clinton that prevented the federal government from recognizing the validity of same sex marriages in the states where they're legal. >> children born today will grow up in a world without doma. the same children who happen to be gay will be free to love and get married, as thea and i did, but with the same federal benefits, protections and dignities and everything else. >> pete williams has the decision we think was previewed. >> the supreme court has decided that it cannot take up the challenge to california's proposition 8, same sex marriage is now once again legal in the state of california. >> the president is on the line, from air force one, president obama. >> hello, mr. president, this is chris perry. >> we thank you for your support. >> we're proud of you guys and in california -- innaudible ]. ♪ that sometimes there are battles which are more than black or white ♪ >> so today is a good day? >> it's the day i finally get to look at the man that i love and fina
, by the san francisco standards i'm probably considered a fairly law & order kind of guy. i'm probably not by natural standards but by city standards. i think when it comes to nightlife, we view it too much from a law enforcement perspective. although law enforcement is a critical stakeholder in nightlife policy, i think law enforcement is playing too dominant a role and anytime we are doing anything the first question is about law enforcement. as opposed to law enforcement plus these other four things. i think we need to take a much more balanced approach in that respect. we also need to empower our entered at -- entertainment commission to do it's job and i will hear the board tomorrow to extend live performance to dj's and creating more outdoor music and granting and effectively manage issues when they come up and by having a more effective entertainment commission which has made great strides, we are going to be that much the better for it. i look forward to working with everyone and again thank you for having me today. [ applause ] >> thank you, supervisor wiener. well, it's th
into treatment in the first place. there is 4 l's, liver, livelihood, lover or the law. those 4 things. liver, livelihood, lover and law. within those l's is when somebody shows up in my door, someone suffering, a family member suffering who brings somebody in. when it company ms to treat we know there is different types of treatment, there is evidence base treatment. there is good evidence for it, we do it. there is evidence free treatment, there is no evidence whatsoever and there is evidence proof treatment. one of those evidence proof treatment is incarceration treatment. there was an office inspection in general report and eventually matt case became supervisor for it. i have been involved in other places. treatment in custody doesn't work. flash incarceration does not work. as far as the treatment that do work for alcoholism, alcoholism is a chronic disease like diabetes. hypertension and emphysema. when we look at outcomes for chronic disease, a landmark study for the journal medical association in 1999, showed that results for treatments were no worse or better than any other chronic
, the court ruled proposition eight backers lacked funding to end the 2000 a law. same-sex marriages can continue in the state. here are the march oral arguments in the case. >> we'll hear argument this morning in case 12-144, hollingsworth v. perry. mr. cooper? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- new york's highest court, in a case similar to this one, remarked that until quite recently, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived in any society in which marriage existed -- >> mr. cooper, we have jurisdictional and merits issues here. maybe it'd be best if you could begin with the standing issue. >> i'd be happy to, mr. chief justice. your honor, the official proponents of proposition 8, the initiative, have standing to defend that measure before this court as representatives of the people and the state of california to defend the validity of a measure that they brought forward. >> have we ever granted standing to proponents of ballot initiatives? >> no, your honor, the court has not done that. but the court has never had before it a clear exp
with the law. >> we're joined by two members who helped draft the bill. john mccain and charles schumer together only on fox news sunday. then we'll example prospects in the republican led house. >> we're not going to bring up the senate bill. we're going to do it in our own way because we wanted to make sure we get the stuff right. >> we'll discuss with two key congressman mario and trey gowdy. and key rulings from the supreme court. >> that is not enough. it's got to go nationwide! >> we'll ask our panel what is next for same-sex marriage. all right now on fox news sunday. >> john: after much debate it secured a victory in the senate with the passage of bill giving millions of immigrants to eventually become u.s. citizens, it has long road to go before it becomes the law of the land the ballot moves to the house as they propose a pathway to citizenship. joining us are two members of the gang of eight responsible for drafting the senate bill, john mccain of arizona he is in jerusalem and charles schumer of new york. let me start with you senator mccain. after years are going after this
, through their own laws, deem to be appropriate marriages. lace toan important work from. >> i'm from the 16th congressional district of pennsylvania. i cannot disagree more than with today's supreme court decision. congress was well within its rights. doma did not dictate to states but now the supreme court wants to direction dictate to the american people of what legislators can do. i want to thank speaker boehner for defending the house of representives and law. their rights were compromised when state officials advocated their responsibility to represent the people. in both of these cases the people acted through the democratic process to define marriage as between one man and one woman and now see their decision invalidated by the court. the majority got it wrong in both cases but they didn't take the more radical step to redefine marriage for every state. i think this decision will have negative consequences for children who are raised by a mom and a dad. if tim is here he's next or scott garrett. >> thank you. i'm scott garrett from new jersey. it's been the precedent throughou
at the supreme court. as the justices lay down the law, two big cases on same-sex marriage. tonight the decisions and the impact across the country. >>> the final moments. chilling testimony from the woman on the phone with trayvon martin the night he died, talking about what she heard during that deadly confrontation. >>> taking a stand. one woman's epic all-night filibuster, her desperate effort to run out the clock when suddenly chaos erupts during a showdown over abortion in texas. >>> in her defense. paula deen's emotional appearance this morning on "today" followed by news tonight of another loss to her one-time food empire. "nightly news" begins now. >>> good evening. gay couples across this country were today handed a sweeping victory by a majority of the justices of the supreme court. they took on two cases. one to allow married partners full federal benefits, the other having to do with gay marriage in california. like so many other things in modern times, the framers of the constitution could not have foreseen this issue. they of course made no mention of same-sex couples in the consti
. knows nothing about the hear say rule, nothing about the law. she wonders the halls like their dead. i have seen it. it's out there and it's not right. it's unacceptable. when the hearing is over, she's denied all connection to her daughter. that is what we are talking about. >> what do you think it's going to take to make society in government to take the step towards gideon and it's what we've talked about. you have worked on this for many years? >> and the bar association that is represented today. i think we are proud of our city, whatever city might be here today. we are all proud of our city. i like this city because we get ideas here that nobody else gets. some of them are really bad. we are all friends here. right? so, our little committee, we are powerless in this culture. forget about it. we have no cloud. so our slogan is, we don't think, we do. because we don't want to study things. there are people out there studying things. so we want to a supervisor. david chu, in this city, we said here is the problem and he said that is terrible. he's a practicing lawyer and we went f
in the public, there was problems with noise, problems with over drinking, a lot of our laws are based on that. i'm here to propose that we have more responsible training for our bar tenders and servers. the cocktail boom around the country has turned bartenders into a true professional. now that professional bartender's job is in question. >> i'm sure it's around the whole notion of where you can drink alcohol and the idea of one of those courses or presentations or event would whether or not it would constitute a public, somebody opened to the public or whether it was essentially amounting to commercial use of alcohol. and, you know, frankly the law is pretty clear on it and we have not or give a quota to a situation where there is any kind of commercial use of alcohol without the benefit of abc license. there are innovative ways to get ourselves into a scenario, a licensed scenario that could let something like that work and another option would be to hold these courses on locations that are already licensed for the sale or service of alcohol. unfortunately i'm not familiar with that chal
. >> and the process that god is here is not worthy of this body. >> began as a bill to ban al-sharia law? >> designed to shut down as many clinics as possible. >> because they don't have enough parking spaces or their awning doesn't need a certain standard. >> my faith and values are strong and valid and important. and legitimate as yours are. >> they're hiding what they're doing. >> north carolina republicans may have just picked themselves a serious fight. >> and going to get out of town before the public can react. >> that crowd is going to descend on you. >> republicans in texas, ohio, and now north carolina are trying to pass legislation that would shut down abortion clinics. today, the republican-led north carolina senate passed this bill, the family, faith and freedom protection act, not one democrat voted for the bill. the bill reads, no qualified health plan offered through an exchange and operating in this state shall include coverage for abortion services. the physician providing any drug or chemical for the purpose of inducing an abortion shall be physically present in the same room with
really act as a good communicator and facilitator in the program from a law enforcement background. and the grant we get through public works really allows us to run effectively. >> great, thank you. >> [speaker not understood]. let me come on over here. what's your question? >> okay. [speaker not understood]. i've gotten three years of knowledge [speaker not understood]. my question is this. how am i going to get the police department, how am i going to get city council -- they're partially on board, but some of our people in public works are here today. how can i convey to them that i'm not a nut -- everybody here thinks i'm a nut because [speaker not understood]. how did they really take this seriously and realize that graffiti is a crime and it requires money and it requires attention from the officials, not just from covering graffiti? is there an answer? can you give me some sort of -- what's a good direction? >> [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood]. basically the task force, they'll put together and try to convince the citizens something is happening, then i
the opportunity to do that. >> reporter: now, u.s. law requires foreign aid be cut off to any country that undergoes a military coup d'etat, but there are exceptions and escape clauses in that law. and jeff, don't be surprised if the white house and state department lawyers find some way to avoid calling this a coup. >> glor: chip reid at the white house tonight. chip, thank you. another problem the administration is facing is getting health care reform up and running. under mounting pressure, it's now delaying until after the congressional elections next year a key part of the program, what's called the employer mandate. wyatt andrews has more on that. >> reporter: as the managing partner of the hotel bethlehem in pennsylvania, bruce haynes was relieved to hear he will not be penalized next year for the workers he can't afford to pay health insurance. the one-year reprieve saves him at least $50,000 in fines and a mountain of paperwork. >> this is an administrative nightmare for business. there's unintended consequences of this bill in terms of... for employees. it's not as simple as
will become law when signed by the president. to my friends in the hois, i realize you have a different approach. speak in a way you feel comfortable. just don't ignore the issue. that's all i ask. >> the senate bill would create a pathway to citizenship for some 11 million people currently in the country illegally. the legislation also seeks to bolster security along the southern border by hiring 20,000 new border patrol agents and completing 700 miles of fencing. even with that border security initiative, at a cost of roughly $40 billion, senate republican leader mitch mcconnell said the plan fell short of what is needed. >> one thing i'm fairly certain about is that we'll never resolve the immigration problem on a bipartisan basis either now or in the future until we can prove... prove that the border is secure as a condition of legalization. this, to me, continues to be the biggest hurdle to reform. >> reporter: other lawmakers expressed hope the border security elements could be strengthened in the republican- controlled house. texas republican john cornyn: >> one of our colleagues
must get federal permission before they change their voting laws. civilnaacp leaders and rights activists speech reporters about the ruling. >> good morning, everyone. good morning to all of our friends and supporters, especially those at ldf, barbara, everyone who has been very supportive of our local units. i'm charles wide and on the national field director for the naacp. -- charles white. we come this morning yet affirming our belief in section five. the court not say much, but they gave us, i think, the juice and what we continue to need that preclearance is important. this is the same kind of advocacy work our units across the field will play in making sure the formula in section four is one that is just and fair but represents the people in jurisdictions that it covers. again, we thank all those who have worked hard with us, worked hard on behalf of many people across this country who come from the jurisdiction in which we talk about. they are our members, loyal supporters. this is a victory for us but there is still a lot to be done. i will now turn to our friends who ha
the 1996 defensive marriage act unconstitutional. that law effectively denied federal benefits to gay couples married under state laws. hampton pearson was at the seem court today and has more on today's rulings and what they mean. >> reporter: the two landmark rulings from the supreme court were greeted by cheers from the huge crowd of mostly gay marriage supporters who gathered. the justices giving new legal options to same sex couples. it's forcing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage in the 12 states and district of columbia where it is legal. in a 5-4 decision the justices overturned the defensive marriage act. doma that denied benefits to same-sex couples. justice anthony kennedy said doma writes inequality into the code and justice skolia said it's one to elect change, it's for a court of law to impose change but judging those who oppose it as enemies of the human race. president obama while in route to africa applauded the doma decision and directed eric holder to review all federal laws related to today's ruling. constitutional law experts say that's just the
of that. >> why? >> because ical californians don't want that kind of discrimination and laws that discriminate against people who otherwise should be treated as equal. >> the governor told all california counties, be ready to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as the court lifts its stay. >>> in contra costa county, the clerk's office is already taking advance reservations for same-sex weddings. they expect it to be pretty busy for the first couple weeks. >>> a majority of california voter, 7 million, passed proposition 8. leaders of the antigay marriage movement say they don't know exactly what their next step will be, but they vow to keep on fighting. >> i think it will impact society strongly. and the youth of our country. >> natural marriage has been destroyed as a role model for children. it's now up to parents and grandparents to diligently teach their children and grandchildren the truth, that marriage is naturally between a male and a female, air man and a woman. >> the u.s. catholic bishops weighed in, calling today a tragic day for marriage and our
everybody i'm going home and there is people all the time up in there educating myself about the law, i know is fast to get in there, but when the wheels are turned to come home, it's slow. i couldn't accept it. people are like they are going to do this to time. i said no, this is clear. this was what was supposed to have been done from the beginning. even my families, my loved wupz ones that lost. that made me fight more. i never gate gave up my fate. my hope is restored. >> with that i would like to thank all of our panelist. thank you. [ applause ] and we are now going to move to our second panel. while they take their seats, this idea of forced treatment versus constitutional rights has always been a tension that we've had in our criminal justice system. there is an issue that came up earlier this year that you may have read about involving this implementation of a court that was supposed to treat individuals who were suffering from long-term alcoholism. and the court was set up in a way where individuals were not being arrested for a crime but instead were being jailed for contempt of
? werelot of these laws written before the adamant -- the popularization of e-mail, --er kinds of medications, communications. for instance the irs ability to read e-mails specifically in the patriot act we have other provisions. there are several things that hit at once on the front. we have several bills. anyone that addresses different aspects of this. essentially, digital communication that includes skype which is replacing telephones, conventional e-mail is becoming commonplace. that is replacing telephone calls. aroundrent set of laws protecting privacy. even though they are essentially the same thing to the consumer. >> represented polis, as postal , are theye calls treated the same abide the law when it comes to privacy? >> postal mail is a different category. physical parcels have in fact the most severe penalties for temperate. continuum, telephonic conversations which typically require a warrant to listen into under the patriot act with issues, thathave is putting it aside. when two americans are talking, that will be the most part taken. a lot of the digital communi
it. >> that's not what he's saying, sir. he's also broken the law. let me bring that to jessica. julian assange mentioned snowden's father. his attorney has written a letter to eric holder, the attorney general, saying that he believes that his son would be willing to come back to the united states if he would not be detained or imprisoned prior to trial, if he would not be subject to a gag order, if he would be tried in the venue of his choosing. do you think it would make sense to return under those circumstances? >> i actually don't. i have represented people like thomas drake who was an nsa whistleblower who went through every conceivable internal channel possible including his boss, the inspector general of his agency, the defense department inspector general and two congressional committees and the u.s. turned around and prosecuted him and did so for espionage. and tied him up for the rest of his life in jail. i think snowden's outlook is bleak here. instead of focusing on snowden and shooting the messenger, we should focus on the crimes of the nsa. whatever laws snowden m
of fact and conclusions of the law, the task force further noted that the statement should be within the body of the minutes to prevent the public officials from unlawfully abridging unwanted or critical public comment, which is specifically impermissible under the brown act and the sunshine ordinance. what has changed, well, last time we had three cases 10054, in january of 2011, and then we had 1154 and, then we had 1171, specifically against the city attorney saying that the task force disagreed with him and found him in violation. and now one thing that i would like to point out is that in your staff report the followings, it was listed. >> to quote, to-date, the task force has not issued any policy advice to city departments regarding compliance of sunshine ordinance, section 6716 and on the website the task force directs users to the good government guide as a legal reference. that is false. here is a letter issued in 2012, may 17th to be exact to the city attorney explaining all of the reasons why the task force disagreed with it and here is a memo dated the 18th of may to all
and the origins of international human rights law" is our next topic. professor, when did the u.s. slave trade star in how did this start? >> u.s. was involved in the slave trade from the moment that we began as a colony of britain's and one of the interesting things of u.s. history is in the constitutional convention there was a compromise for the states that had slaves and those that didn't and the constitution said the federal congress could not take any action in tel 18 '08 in the first moment that it could president jefferson sent legislation to congress that they and participation in the slave trade by u.s. ships are persons and congress pass that so they prohibited the slave trade which was a long time before slavery itself but the issues forseen is different and even southerners were in support to bay and the slave trade. >> allotted to for reasons. was perceived as the more inhumane part of the traffic but also the economic self-interest that they already own slaves in the environment in the u.s.'s sole much it was not as high in southern plantations as it was in in cuba or brazil but
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 1,416 (some duplicates have been removed)